About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors
Dean Barker
Laura Clawson
Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
susanthe
William Tucker

ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
Katrina Swett
Jennifer Daler

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

Shea-Porter Targets One of King George's Worst Abuses

by: Dean Barker

Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 19:20:40 PM EDT


I'm so excited by this news I can barely type.

Carol Shea-Porter, just yesterday, introduced The Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007 (HR 3045) which would "prohibit the courts from considering signing statements when interpreting federal laws."  It's the House version of Specter's bill in the Senate.  Here's Carol:

"President Bush has trampled on the constitutional separation of powers through his abuse of signing statements," said Congresswoman Shea-Porter. "He has attempted to usurp power that was given to the Congress, not the President, and has severely bruised the system of checks and balances. This is an insult to the founders of this country and to the American people, and it cannot be allowed to continue."

..."Every third grader learns about separation of powers and checks and balances - the Congress writes the laws and the President signs them," continued Shea-Porter. "Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the President can approve part of a law and ignore the rest."

Man, what a difference an election makes.  In the House, we have New Hampshire's first female Representative working to restore checks and balances and the rule of law, while in the Senate, we have Sprintin' John E. Sununu, who can't decide if habeas corpus is a good thing.

Rock on, Carol.


Update: Jay Buckey has issued a press release in support of this bill:

"We need to restore balance to our government," said Jay Buckey, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from New Hampshire.  "I support Carol Shea-Porter's recent proposal to ban the use of Presidential Signing Statements as the basis for legal decisions."
End Update

(Full text of the release below the fold)

Dean Barker :: Shea-Porter Targets One of King George's Worst Abuses
No link on this one yet; you'll have to trust me that it landed in my inbox this afternoon (to thunderous applause):

Shea-Porter Introduces Bill to Curb Presidential Signing Statements

Shea-Porter: "Bush has trampled on the constitutional separation of powers"

Washington, DC - Congresswoman Carol-Shea Porter (D-NH) introduced a bill on Monday to rein in the use of presidential signing statements. The Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007 (HR 3045) would prohibit the courts from considering signing statements when interpreting federal laws.

Shea-Porter's legislation is the companion to a bill introduced in the Senate last month by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"President Bush has trampled on the constitutional separation of powers through his abuse of signing statements," said Congresswoman Shea-Porter. "He has attempted to usurp power that was given to the Congress, not the President, and has severely bruised the system of checks and balances. This is an insult to the founders of this country and to the American people, and it cannot be allowed to continue."

Instead of issuing new regulations for the President or the Executive Branch, Shea-Porter's bill seeks to protect the constitutional separation of powers by defining how the courts may use signing statements when interpreting the law. Specifically, the bill reads: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, no Federal or State court shall rely on or defer to a presidential signing statement as a source of authority." H.R. 3045 does not attempt to curtail legitimate uses for signing statements, such as providing instruction to executive branch agencies.

"Every third grader learns about separation of powers and checks and balances - the Congress writes the laws and the President signs them," continued Shea-Porter. "Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the President can approve part of a law and ignore the rest."

Background information is attached below.

Background on H.R. 3045: The Presidential Signing Statements Act

History of Signing Statements:

Although signing statements have been around since Andrew Jackson, their use has increased dramatically in recent years. As of April of this year, President Bush had issued 127 separate signing statements containing challenges to over 700 specific provisions of various bills. There have also been a number of high profile cases, including the McCain anti-torture amendment and the Patriot Act reauthorization, in which the President has used signing statements to ignore laws passed by Congress.

Some of the most prominent signing statements in which President Bush asserted that he would not follow the law involved:

o  Congressional requirements to report back to Congress on the use of Patriot Act authority to secretly search homes and seize private papers;

o  The McCain amendment forbidding any U.S. officials to use torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment on prisoners (the President said in his statement that as Commander in Chief he could waive any such requirement if necessary to prevent terrorist attacks);

o  A requirement that government scientists transmit their findings to Congress uncensored, along with a guarantee that whistleblower employees at the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will not be punished for providing information to Congress about safety issues in the planned nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain

Some additional examples of signing statements in which President Bush has indicated he will not follow the law are:
o  Bills banning the use of U.S. troops in combat against rebels in Colombia;
o  Bills requiring reports to Congress when money from regular appropriations is diverted to secret operations;
o  Two bills forbidding the use in military intelligence of materials "not lawfully collected" violation of the Fourth Amendment; a post-Abu Ghraib bill mandating new regulations for military prisons in which military lawyers were permitted to advise commanders on the legality of certain kinds of treatment even if the Department of Justice lawyers did not agree;

o  Bills requiring retraining of prison guards in humane treatment under the Geneva Conventions, requiring background checks for civilian contractors in Iraq and banning contractors from performing security, law enforcement, intelligence and criminal justice functions.

[Source: American Bar Association Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine, July 24, 2006. http://www.abanet.or... ]

Provisions of HR 3045: The Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007

o  Prevents the President from issuing a signing statement that alters the meaning of a statute by instructing Federal and State courts not to rely on Presidential signing statements in interpreting a statute.

o  Grants Congress the power to participate in any case where the construction or constitutionality of any act of Congress is in question and a presidential signing statement for that act was issued, by:

a)  Allowing Congress to file an amicus brief and present oral argument in such a case.
b)  Instructing that if Congress passes a joint resolution declaring its view of the correct interpretation of the statute, the court must admit that resolution into the case record.

c)  Providing for expedited review in such a case.

Timeline of the Presidential Signing Statements Act: H.R.3045 and S.1747

o  S.1747 was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) on June 29, 2007
o  HR.3045 was introduced in the House by Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter on July 16, 2007

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Congrats to Shea-Porter.... (4.00 / 1)
She's raising an important issue and her I'm proud that a New Hampshirite is sheding light on the abusive choices made by Bush and Cheney's decision-making.

But here are my concerns and let me preface this by saying... I'm being as respectful and honest as I possibly can!

* Why should the Democrats be responsible for cleaning up the malfeasence of this administration, without holding Bush and Cheney responsible? It feels like, "Don't worry about it, we'll clean up your mess."

* Bush can veto this piece of legislation and if it's overidden, don't you suppose he wil clain executive privelege again?

* How likely could this gain traction when the Democrats can't even stop funding for the war in Iraq, as evidenced by the 230- 178 vote in the House and the 80-14 vote in the Senate?

* Isn't HR 3045 merely chipping around the edges of a much deeper problem? Why not tackle diseases instead of chipping away at the symptoms? Dan DeWalt of the Vermont impeachment movement put it best when he once wrote:

The Democrats continue to pull at some dried skin of a reeking onion, but they refuse to investigate the rot that is spreading from its core.

While the intentions of HR 3045 are excellent, it leaves the culprits who committed the criminal acts off the hook, and with Bush & Cheney at the helm, we know what they're going to do with it. They'll veto it. What they can't veto is impeachment in the House and a trial in the Senate. That is why I believe this is a more effective and efficient route for Congress to take.

Impeachment has more teeth and put the president and vice-president in a position they cannot get out of. They can't veto it, they can't claim executive privelege, they can't initiate another signing statement. Impeachment is the only remedy when the executive usurps legislative authority. As John Nichols said on Bill Moyers, "Impeachment is not a trauma (or a punishment) but a cure for the Constitution!

Accountability is necessary and in this time and place, investigations into impeachment are appropriate.  Bringing the truth out into the open is a way to unite, not divide politicians. As long as the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate are unwilling to let the debate proceed beyond opinion and conjecture, they will continue to have a partisan divide. Investigations get to to core. Passing legislation to reverse Bush & Cheney's damage treats the symptoms. I think HR 3045 is a great idea, but perhaps it would be better suited to be introduced after Bush and Cheney are gone. It's a policy issue which can be put on hold until after the president and vice-president leaves (or removed) from office. As of now, there's a more important issue to tackle: Holding them accountable for their crimes and misdemeanors and bringing that evidence into the light during investigations of impeachment.

The public wants it and polls are showing it. It's well past time.

PS: I am IN NO WAY trying to be trollish or shit on the great work Shea-Porter is doing. I just beleive there's more that needs to be done and IMO impeachment is the necessary, appropriate, effective, effecient, and non-extreme action by which to solve it.


It's true. Impeachment is in order. (0.00 / 0)
However, the signing statements are in the books, so to speak, and not likely to be rescinded, even if Bush Two is convicted of abuse of power.
On Spechter's part the legislation is probably intended as a paliative--to quiet restless Republicans.  I don't think that's the case with Shea-Porter.  She does seem to be good at multi-tasking.

[ Parent ]
Proud of my Blue State! (4.00 / 1)
Who'd a thunk just a few years ago that NH would be leading the country in Blue? Makes me proud.

...the Doo Dah Man once told me you've got to play your hand. Sometimes the cards ain't worth a dime if you don't lay 'em down.

Keeping It Blue (4.00 / 2)
Your Design Portal - Photo, Banner Ad and Flyer Hosting

Next time, there may be no next time.

[ Parent ]
Speaking English (4.00 / 1)
One of the things I love about Carol is when she explains what she is doing she used good, plain, simple English, not spin talk.  It is so refreshing.  I hope she stays in Congress a long time, and never changes.  I will work for that.


We believe in prosperity & opportunity, strong communities, healthy families, great schools, investing in our future and leading the world by example. We are Democrats; we are the change you're looking for.

Good For CSP! (0.00 / 0)
Carol Shea-Porter is the best. The Republicans keep trying to pound away at her, but she just continues to go about her business, which she knows is the people's buisness. 

NH - ex pat, impeachment is not the answer to every problem that comes down the pike. It does not look like impeachment is going to happen. You may disagree with the Democrats in congress about whether impeachment is a good idea, but the reality on the ground is that it is not happening.

Even if it does happen, you don't know if the House will vote to impeach, and if they do, you don't know what the outcome in the Senate would be.  And even if there was a vote to convict, how does that end the signing statement practice?  Short of a conviction for misusing signing statements, the next president, and the one after that, might keep up the practice. Putting corrective legislation on hold pending something that may never happen makes zero sense. 

So, in the meantime, it is a good thing and the right thing for Congresswoman Shea-Porter and the rest of her colleagues to take steps to undo the bad things that Bush has done, like signing statements and taking the corpus out of habeas corpus.  Impeachment, even if it turns into reality, is not a panacea for every ill created by Bush. 

Energy and persistence conquer all things.


Benjamin Franklin


 


OK.... (4.00 / 1)

Now let me respectfully challange that.

We don't know now if the House will impeach and the Senate will convict. They said the same thing in '73-'74 but the House Judiciary knew they swore to protect, defend, and honor the Constitution all all costs and what they saw were very grevious crimes and misdemeanors. They didn't know where it would go, but they knew they had to investigate. The evidence came out, Congress turned on Nixon. I think it would be much more difficult this time around (Nixon never was this resistant like Bush) but that doesn't mean it can't be done.

I think it would be wise to put this resolution on hold because it can't pass. Bush can veto and it it's overridden, he can claim executive privelege (as far as I know or at least he's demonstrated to do so). Bush (and Cheney) CANNOT override an impeachment investigation nor can he override removal from office.

While Shea-Porter's resolution is admirable (and I mean that) I think it is:

a.) peeling away at the onion when there is a major problem at the core and

b.) let's the administration off the hook and makes the Democrats pick up there mess.

If something similar like this were to happen in our lives, would we pick up there mess and not hold the culprits accountable? To do so is not the right strategy to healing our fragile democracy and it sends a message to future leaders that they can get away with abusing their power. They don't have to worry because the Democratic cleaning crew (for lack of a better term) will take care of our mess!

There is no other appropriate time than now to consider investigations into impeachment. The public supports it, Bush and Cheney's approval rating are in the tank, and Congress' approval ratings are even worse. Americans are yearning for a party with backbone and bravery. Impeachment can take the Dems out of the doldrums. NOT hurt them!


[ Parent ]
Right. Impeachment is an act of (4.00 / 2)
law enforcement.  Republicans are law and order people.  If a law has been broken, take action to enforce it.  Don't just rewrite it.

[ Parent ]
For the record, if Justice Anthony Kennedy (4.00 / 1)
is to be believed, the primary object of the Rule of Law is to limit the behavior of the agents of government.  It is, unlike the criminal law which applies to individuals, permissive.  That is, instead of spelling out what can't be done, the law specifies what the agents of government may and must do--nothing less and nothing more.

So, for example, federal government agencies are not allowed to transfer money from one function to another, unless such an adjustment is specifically permitted in the legislation.  Regardless, we now know from "unauthorized" testimony that money which had been appropriated for the effort to hunt down al Qaeda in Afghanistan was secretly transfered to ramp up the plans for the invasion of Iraq.  Since there's not much the Congress can do years after the money has been mis-spent, the provision in the proposed law requiring notice to the Congress when such a shift is contemplated is an effort to get more timely information.

Clearly, nothing will be effective, if you've got crooks in the White House.  All that can be hoped is that the pencil pushers in the Treasury will halt the transfer of funds if there's a specific prohibition in their files.

BTW, the reason the Pentagon keeps issuing no-bid contracts is because the practice is permitted by the laws passed by Congress.


To piggy back off that.... (4.00 / 1)

.... Let's go back to the failed war funding bill.

If the Dems in Congress wanted to force a bill with a withdrawl timeline, it didn't have to pass the bill over George W. Bush's veto! It just had to make clear that no Iraq War spending bill without a timeline would be forthcoming. Given that the Constitution requires Congress to approve all spending, Bush needs Congress's approval to continue the war.

If the Dems goal was to end the war..... they could have prevailed simply by NOT PASSING ANY BILL!!!!!!!

Catch my drift?


[ Parent ]

Connect with BH
     
Powered by: SoapBlox